ArticlePloS one2011
Quantifying selective reporting and the Proteus phenomenon for multiple datasets with similar bias.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Estimates of the mean difference in orthopaedic randomized trials: obligatory yet obscure.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Estimating publication bias in meta-analyses of peer-reviewed studies: A meta-meta-analysis across disciplines and journal tiers.Research synthesis methods · 2021Pooled it
- Extended prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism after hospitalization for medical illness: A trial sequential and cumulative meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2019Pooled it
- The role of TREM2 R47H as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2015Pooled it
- Clinical outcome prediction by microRNAs in human cancer: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2012Pooled it
- An Integrated Text Mining Approach for Discovering Pharmacological Effects, Drug Combinations, and Repurposing Opportunities of ACE Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Increasing Value and Reducing Waste of Research on Neurofeedback Effects in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A State-of-the-Art-Review.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2024Review
- The tainted altruism effect: a successful pre-registered replication.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Is the replication crisis a base-rate fallacy?Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2021Article
- Altered central pain processing in fibromyalgia-A multimodal neuroimaging case-control study using arterial spin labelling.PloS one · 2021Article
- Effect Declines Are Systematic, Strong, and Ubiquitous: A Meta-Meta-Analysis of the Decline Effect in Intelligence Research.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Review
- Accumulation Bias in meta-analysis: the need to considerF1000Research · 2019Article
- How to Conduct and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2014Review
- Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2013Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analyses play an important role in synthesizing evidence from diverse studies and datasets that address similar questions. A major obstacle for meta-analyses arises from biases in reporting. In particular, it is speculated that findings which do not achieve formal statistical significance are less likely reported than statistically significant findings. Moreover, the patterns of bias can be complex and may also depend on the timing of the research results and their relationship with previously published work. In this paper, we present an approach that is specifically designed to analyze large-scale datasets on published results. Such datasets are currently emerging in diverse research fields, particularly in molecular medicine. We use our approach to investigate a dataset on Alzheimer's disease (AD) that covers 1167 results from case-control studies on 102 genetic markers. We observe that initial studies on a genetic marker tend to be substantially more biased than subsequent replications. The chances for initial, statistically non-significant results to be published are estimated to be about 44% (95% CI, 32% to 63%) relative to statistically significant results, while statistically non-significant replications have almost the same chance to be published as statistically significant replications (84%; 95% CI, 66% to 107%). Early replications tend to be biased against initial findings, an observation previously termed Proteus phenomenon: The chances for non-significant studies going in the same direction as the initial result are estimated to be lower than the chances for non-significant studies opposing the initial result (73%; 95% CI, 55% to 96%). Such dynamic patterns in bias are difficult to capture by conventional methods, where typically simple publication bias is assumed to operate. Our approach captures and corrects for complex dynamic patterns of bias, and thereby helps generating conclusions from published results that are more robust against the presence of different coexisting types of selective reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.